“Natural Born” Does Not Equal “Loyal Citizen”

Carlos Calwianka, FloydReports.com

Obama finally produced his “long form birth certificate,” and Ann Coulter crowed she was right all along about the birth certificate, but she really proved herself a crack shot when she said the birther controversy distracts from what a terrible presidency the Obama administration is. Quite well said, but did his parents have the qualifications to confer on Barack Obama Jr. undivided loyalty to his nation of birth? You know a tree by its fruit, and you know the loyalty of a president to his nation by his leadership.

Nowhere is this more evident than in current White House energy policy. Recently, the president recounted speaking to OPEC about opening its oil spigots: “We are in a lot of conversations with the major oil producers like Saudi Arabia to let them know that it’s not going to be good for them if our economy is hobbled because of high oil prices.”

This is all pretty strange when you consider what Obama’s prime offshore oil drilling official, Michael Bromwich — who heads the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement — stated last week: “You can’t drill your way to lower oil prices. It’s a world market. We have a very limited impact on that.”

Does Obama understand supply and demand? The past year has seen the administration virtually halt nearly all offshore oil drilling permitting, costing the U.S. approximately 400,000 barrels of oil production per day.

The average price of crude (Dated Brent, West Texas Intermediate, and the Dubai Fateh) over the October 2010-March 2011 time period of $92/barrel means that this restriction has cost the U.S. economy more than $36 million a day. The impact on our trade deficit during that six month time frame surpasses….

Read more.

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. It's not possible to be a natural born U.S. citizen with a foreign father. Period! Besides the fact, that the new "birth certificate" creates far more questions than answers!

    • Who told you that? It is wrong.

      The reason that the US Electoral College gave Obama every single vote that he won in the general election was that not one single Elector believed that Obama was either born outside of the USA or that the citizenship of his father affects his Natural Born Citizen status. The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY was that not one single member in the 535 house and senate members believed that Obama was either born outside of the USA or that the citizenship of his father affects his Natural Born Citizen status.

      “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        As of April 30, 2008, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN has a new definition.
        Senator Obama co-chaired Senate Resolution 511 in order to disprove that Senator McCain fulfilled the requirements of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. To be eligible to run for the office of President, the candidate MUST be born on American soil and Both Parents MUST be American Citizens. Obama's father did not hold U.S. citizenship. President Obama is short by one American parent.(thanks lady blaze)
        Or doesn't this apply to him? (of course it won't)

        • That Senate resolution referred ONLY to John McCain. A similar action was not required for Obama because, duh, his Natural Born Citizen status was OBVIOUS. That is why he won every single vote from the Electoral College that he had won in the general election. If even one member of the Electoral College had thought that the citizenship of Obama's father affected Obama's Natural Born Citizen status, the vote would have been less than in the general election because one or more electors would have changed their votes–but no one did. If even one member of the US Congress (100 Senators and 435 in the House) had thought that Obama's father's citizenship affected Obama's Natural Born Citizen status, the vote would not have been unanimous. But Obama's election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY.

          Under this definition: "“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition " Obama's criterion is the first, the original criterion, birth within the jurisdiction. McCain's criterion is the second, the one added by statute, birth abroad to citizen parents.

          Meese does not completely agree with the second of the criteria. He says that it is "much less certain." But he agrees completely with the first criterion, birth in the jurisdiction.

          "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • And, by the way, a Senate resolution has no legal weight whatsoever. It is not a law (which requires two houses and the signature of the president unless passed over a veto by two-thirds of each house), and it is certainly not an amendment to the US Constitution.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            But you also seem to forget BHO Sr. citizenship which jr is bound.
            The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
            You also have
            Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines “natural born citizen” and http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopi
            There is also 1874 case Minor v. Happersett, SCOTUS affirmed the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as defined in Vattel’s Law of Nation.

          • Neither Vattel nor his book was mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. The meaning of Natural Born clearly spelled out in Blackstone (whose book was far more popular among the writers of the US Constitution than Vattel's) was that every child born in the country (except the children of foreign diplomats) was Natural Born including the children of foreigners.

            You have misinterpreted the Minor case, which merely said that at one time there were doubts. Well, at one time there were doubts as to the earth being round. Subsequent to Minor there was a US Supreme Court case that said that there weren't any doubts anymore. The case, the Wong Kim Ark case, ruled six to two (one not voting) that every child born in the country is Natural Born–the same definition as Blackstone. A person who is both a citizen and Natural Born is, duh, a Natural Born citizen.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Law is subjective. The Minor case is open to interpretation.
            It's interesting you should bring up Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649 (1898), argued 5-8 Mar. 1897, decided 28 Mar. 1898 by a vote of 6-2)
            From the respondents OWN brief: "He has always subjected himself to the jurisdiction and dominion of the United States, …and has been taxed, recognized, and treated
            as a citizen of the United States."

            By his own admission, Obama DID in fact follow his BIRTH father's jurisdiction and dominion by residing on the land of his father and subjected himself to such. Jr., did in fact reside in Kenya in early childhood. He then moved his residence to Indonesia. Which, by school records found, declared him to be a citizen of Indonesia. By his own admission, BHOJr, did not establish residency on U.S. soil until 10 years of age. By using the decision of the Wong Ark case, you can say BHOJr did NOT claim loyalty to the United States until the age of 10. Being born of an alien father, to wit, a subject of the United Kingdom, claimed by that nation as such, and therefore was not born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

          • All children born in the USA (other than the children of foreign diplomats) are subject to the laws of the USA, as for that matter are all adults (other than foreign diplomats) who live in the USA. Being subject to the jurisdiction means having to obey the laws. If you are a dual national (and Obama was once but it not anymore), you may have to obey the laws of two countries. But that still means that you have to obey the laws of both of those countries. In other words, being subject to the jurisdiction of Britain does not make someone not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

            Many Americans live overseas for a while. Herbert Hoover did for much of his life. The US Constitution does not even require 100% residence in the USA. It says that to be eligible a person must have lived in the USA for 14 years. Say that a candidate was 50 years old and had lived in the USA for only the required 14 years. What percent of a life is that? Only 28% of it. Say that a candidate was 60 years old and only lived in the USA for 14 years. What percent is that? Why it is only 23%.

            So, the writers of the US Constitution were willing to allow presidents to have lived abroad for virtually all their lives, so long as they were US citizens at birth and lived in the USA for at least 14 years. Obama has lived in the USA for considerably more than 14 years.

            The school records you are referring to is an UNSIGNED school application, which could have been filled in by the clerk without even asking the parents what the citizenship was. The clerk may simply have filled in that citizenship because the school was expected to show a certain number of Indonesian citizens. But the unsigned document is not proof that Obama was a citizen of Indonesia. In fact, both the Indonesian government (in calls to the embassy) and the US State Department in a legal filing (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/department-of-state-denies-birther-allegations/) have both denied that Obama was ever a citizen of Indonesia.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You continue to give YOUR interpretations, YOUR scenarios. Does not make them fact.

            The school records are unsigned. And this clerk just "knew" the place and date of birth (whether correct or not). The clerk just "knew" his name,religion, address.(again whether correct or not).
            It seems MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that a relative filled out this form.

            And Indonesian citizenship has no true bearing on the fact that Obama was a United Kingdom citizen due to his father.
            The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution

          • The Indonesian government and the US State Department say that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

            Neither Obama's fathers citizenship nor dual nationality has any effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status. The writers of the Constitution made no mention of dual citizenship, and the definition of Natural Born that they used referred only to the place of birth.

          • As for the clerk. The point is that since the document was not signed, we do not know whether the parents said "Indonesian" (which would have been a lie since the Indonesian government said that he wasn't) or if the clerk did it without asking. Either way, the unsigned document is not evidence, and the Indonesian government (and the US State Department) both say that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The Indonesian government told YOU that he was not adopted. Point to the document that officially declared Obama was/is not an Indonesian citizen.

            As for the document, someone knew an awful lot about Obama AND was allowed to register him for school.

          • http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/department

            The above site includes a link to the department of state PDF of its legal reply in a FOI case. It says quite clearly in it, several times, that Obama was not adopted and was not a citizen of Indonesia.

            I love the way that you rely on that unsigned Indonesian school application document. It says quite clearly on it that Obama was born in Honolulu. Is it legal proof that he was born in Honolulu? No. Is it legal proof that he was an Indonesian citizen? No, and both the US government and the Indonesian government say that he wasn't.

            By the way, if Indonesia have ever thought that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, they would have sent him a tax notice.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So which is it? Is this a VALID form or invalid? It would not matter IF he was born in Hawaii if he has Indonesian citizenship.

            As I have said, this is all just icing. He can not be President and have dual citizenship. Any PROOF yet? (not opinion)

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            "The Indonesian government and the US State Department say that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia."
            And you know this because you made some phone call to the Indonesian Embassy. They gave you information they won't release to anyone else.

            "Neither Obama's fathers citizenship nor dual nationality has any effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status"

            Yes it does. Or at least it did for Chester A. Arthur.

          • IF Chester A. Arthur was born in the USA, he was a Natural Born US Citizen.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Chester A. Arthur WAS born on US soil. He held DUAL citizenship. This is WHY SCOTUS ruled against him and he was REMOVED from office.

          • Arthur was NOT removed by the US Supreme Court. He, like Thomas Jefferson at the time that he served in office, was a dual national. Neither was removed from office. The US Supreme Court did not act on Arthur. Who told you that it did?

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            History is wrong and YOU are right.

            You have a proven problem with comprehension.

            Education is your friend.

          • History is right. Arthur was not removed by the US Supreme Court. Who told you that he was? He served out the entire remainder of the Garfield term.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            History IS correct. Arthur was ruled against eligibility by SCOTUS. He was DENIED renomination by the Republican party.

            Try reading.

            Education is your friend.

          • It is you who are making this crazy allegation. Show a book saying that the US Supreme Court ruled on Arthur.

            Yes, he was denied renomination, but there were plenty of issues, and Arthur's alleged lack of Natural Born Status (which is not true. If he were born in the USA, he is Natural Born) was not one of them.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Historical FACTS are not wrong just because you WANT them to be.

            So NOW he was denied renomination.

            Keep trying.
            Education is your friend.

          • The US Supreme Court did not act on Arthur, as you originally said. And the fact that Arthur lost to Blaine at the convention was for many reasons, but no history book that I know says that the allegation that Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen was a major cause (or any cause) of Blaine's victory.

            Education is your friend. Before making claims about the Supreme Court, or the cause of a candidate winning at a convention you should look at history books.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You've already admitted that Arthur was DENIED renomination. If you check SCOTUS rulings you will find more truths.

            Education is your friend. Try reading instead of just taking others at their word.
            Truth is truth and facts are facts. No one can change either.

          • The reason that Arthur lost and Blaine won was not the allegation that Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen. That was not a major issue in the Republican convention.

            It is a lie that the US Supreme Court took action against President Arthur.

            Why don't you show the SCOTUS ruling that you CLAIM? (Because you cannot. It does not exist.)

            Education is your friend. Try reading.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            History IS correct. Arthur was ruled AGAINST eligibility by SCOTUS. He was DENIED renomination by the Republican party.

            Education is your friend.

          • You are making both claims. Neither of them is true. Show a history book or a US Supreme Court citation that Arthur was ruled against by the US Supreme Court or that Arthur's alleged lack of Natural Born Status was a major issue at the Republican convention in which he lost to Blaine.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            In another post you ADMITTED he was DENIED renomination.

            Historical FACTS are not wrong just because you wish them to be.

            Keep trying.
            Education is your friend.

          • Yes, he was denied renomination. He was denied nomination because Blaine won the nomination. The reason that Blaine won and Arthur lost was not the claim that Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The proper term is LOST renomination, not DENIED. Your right, he was DENIED. If you read for yourself, and not just take others word, you will see the truth.
            You can't twist the truth to suit you. Truths are truths and facts are facts.

          • Okay. He lost the nomination. The question is, why? The answer is that Blaine was more popular than Arthur. The issue of Arthur's Natural Born Citizen status was not a major one. You have not shown that the Natural Born Citizen issue was discussed at the Republican convention or the Republicans had held hearings on the matter before the convention or that there was even a letter writing campaign to delegates about Arthur's alleged lack of Natural Born Citizen status.

            Truths are truths and facts are facts. And Arthur having lost to Blaine because of the Natural Born Citizenship issue is neither a truth or a fact.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Of course it wouldn't. Told in true Obamamessiah style. The laws apply to you but not me.
            It must NOT have been so obvious. Even in Sen. Leahy's, co-sponser of the bill, own recorded words in a formal Senate Resolution "that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace." means nothing.

            So if this resolution is brought up against Obama, in the same context, your claiming he would pass the tests of "natural born citizen"? So different rules applied to McCain than Obama?

            .

          • Leahy never said that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. I repeat, Leahy DID NOT SAY that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. Find the quote and cite it, or admit you made it up.

            And, by the way, Leahy voted to confirm Obama's election along with all the other members of the house and the senate.

            Obama clearly falls under both of these definitions:

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You have personally read every transcript and KNOW FOR FACT it is not there. You're afraid to admit the truth.
            You use Leahy's vote to confirm Obama's election like he had a choice. He's not the Messiah himself, Obama, who could go against majority vote and do as he wish.

            McCain CLEARLY fell within the Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition definition, but they felt the need for a resolution.
            So you claim Obama clearly falls under the same guidelines used against McCain?
            In a further CLARIFICATION of "Natural Born Citizen" , with Senate Resolution 511. Obama DOES NOT fall within these guidelines. He IS NOT born of TWO US citizens.
            So you STILL claim Obama passes the SAME tests that was used for McCain to DEFINE Natural Born Citizen?

          • YOU said that Leahy said it. Show the quotation, or admit you made it up.

            McCain CLEARLY fell within the Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition definition, but they felt the need for a resolution.

            Answer: Yes.

            That is because under the Meese definition there is doubt about McCain (but not about Obama):

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            Re: "So you STILL claim Obama passes the SAME tests that was used for McCain to DEFINE Natural Born Citizen?"

            Answer: No., Obama falls under the first of the criteria listed by Black, and he falls under the unquestioned criterion of Meese.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            It is YOU who choses to refuse to believe facts.

            All in all, Obama passing the same citizen tests as McCain is, quite simply, also just extra. It comes down to a very simple and basic point.

            BHO Sr. WAS, at the time of Jr birth, a UNITED KINGDOM citizen and under the jurisdiction of such.

            The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution

            You continually sidestep this fact.

          • Neither Obama's father's citizenship nor dual nationality has any effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status. That is why Obama received every vote that he won in the general election from the US Electoral College, because not a single elector believed that either the citizenship of Obama's father or dual nationality had any effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status. And the same was also the case in the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY.

            The writers of the Constitution made no mention of dual citizenship, and the definition of Natural Born that they used referred only to the place of birth.

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You keep believing all that.

            Dual citizenship DOES have direct relation on Obama's ability to hold POTUS.
            Chester A. Arthur was kicked out of office for it.

            The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution

          • If Chester A. Arthur was born in the USA, he was a Natural Born Citizen.

            Arthur was not "kicked out of office." He served the full term. He lost his party's nomination to a more popular Republican, who in turn lost to Grover Cleveland.

            The British Nationality Act, and all foreign citizenship laws, have no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of a person born in the USA (not a child of foreign diplomats, of course). That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY. Not one member in 535 thought that either the citizenship of Obamas' father or dual nationality at birth has any effect on Natural Born Citizen status.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So you claim that there was NO ruling AGAINST President Arthur by SCOTUS?

            Arthur FIRST took office after the assassination of Garfield. He was DENIED Republican renomination in 1884 due to the SCOTUS ruling.

            US Congress voted unanimously BECAUSE there was NO RULING to the contrary.
            It WONT happen again.

          • There was NO SCOTUS ruling. IF Arthur was born in the USA, he was a Natural Born Citizen. Some say that he was born in Canada. If he was born in Canada, he was not a Natural Born Citizen. But it was not proven that he was born in Canada.

            There was NO SCOTUS ruling.

            The US Supreme Court is unlikely to take the Obama case, having already turned down five or six birther cases. But, if if does, it will rule overwhelmingly that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because the meaning of Natural Born when the Constitution was written referred ONLY to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents, and it made no mention of dual nationality.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Of course, history is wrong and your OPINION is right.

            You have a proven problem with comprehension.

            Education is your friend.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You have personally read every transcript and KNOW FOR FACT it is not there. You're afraid to admit the truth.

            You use Leahy's vote to confirm Obama's election like he had a choice. He's not the Messiah himself, Obama, who could go against majority vote and do as he wish.

            So you say Obama CLEARLY FALLS under the same guidelines used against McCain? McCain CLEARLY fell within the definition:

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            To further CLARIFY “Natural Born Citizen”, See Senate Resolution 511.

            Do you STILL claim Obama passes the SAME tests that was used for McCain to DEFINE Natural Born Citizen?

          • IT was you who said that Leahy had called Obama not a Natural Born Citizen. Show a link to the quotation or admit that you made it up.

            Re: "Do you STILL claim Obama passes the SAME tests that was used for McCain to DEFINE Natural Born Citizen? "

            No. They meet different tests. Obama was born in the USA. McCain was born abroad to US citizens.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I'm saving you a comment.

            Its a FRAUD! It's a LIE! You called the WRONG department. It's PROVEN it's a lie, they told ME personally!

            Obama is a usurper. Facts are facts.

          • Eh?

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            YEP.

          • YEP what? What are you saying?

  2. He is not a citizen by birth and it has only taken them 3 years to figure out how they can make a birth certificate and think they can fool the people. The only ones they fool are the fools. His certificate is not a real one but a made up one without the state seal which means it is not real, even a certifide copy has to have the seal to be real. We should not be getting oil from any other country and helping their economy when we have all the oil and natural gas to last for as long as this world will. Of course he seems to think he has to keep all the Muslims happy and to hell with the American people he hates.

    • Obama was born in Hawaii and is therefore both a citizen by birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

      “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        Unless you include his father who is a citizen of The United Kingdom which would fall under The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5):
        Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

        Therefore is NOT a natural born citizen by birth.

        • Unless Obama's father was a foreign diplomat (and he wasn't) the fact that he was a foreign citizen has no effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status.

          “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

          “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          There is nothing in either of these definitions that requires that a child born in the USA (which Obama was) has to have two or even one citizen parent. the Wong Kim Ark case, ruled six to two (one not voting) that every child born in the country is Natural Born–the same definition as Blackstone. A person who is both a citizen and Natural Born is, duh, a Natural Born citizen.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        I find it quite sad that the Obama sheep WANT him to be natural born. They want it so much they IGNORE what OBAMA HIMSELF says about his status. ACCORDING TO OBAMA AND HIS WEBSITE, he is a NATIVE CITIZEN.

        Now before you start the its a fraud. He never said it yada yada, go to OBAMA'S WEBSITE and see for yourself. OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

        Quote: "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America" http://www.theobamafile.com/_exhibits/FightTheSme

        Still want to argue he is a Natural born citizen when Obama himself doesn't? I'm sure Obama thanks you for the misguidance and misdirection of the truth.

        • ALL native born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The only kind of a US citizen who is not a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized citizen.

          Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

          Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

          “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

          Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

          “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

          The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

          “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

          Obama received every single electoral vote that he had won in the general election from the US Electoral College, which means that not one single Elector believed that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. Obama’s election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress, which means that not one single congressman or senator in the 535 believed that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, a conservative. The US Supreme Court has turned down every birther appeal. No member of Congress has called for an investigation of Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Here is a link to help you since you OBVIOUSLY don't know the DIFFERENCE. http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

            1. A "natural born" citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that's two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) — think Ronald Reagan — in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage AND there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace.

            2. A citizen "by statute" is any person born of US citizen parent(s) outside the United States — think John McCain — in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage BUT there is a foreign entanglement via birthplace (Colon, Panama).

            3. A "native born" citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland — think Barack Obama — in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace (IF he was born in Hawaii) BUT there is a foreign entanglement via his parentage (if Barak Obama is his father).

            (Continued)

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "…children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…" (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A.

            (Continued)

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states:

            "No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…" (See Attachment C)

            So you see there IS a difference.

            He IS A USURPER.

            I can't wait to hear you cry over your Messiah.

          • That legislation adds the children of US citizens born abroad to the existing Natural Born Citizens. The existing Natural Born Citizens were the US citizens who had been born in the USA, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or foreigners. That is the way that John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and, yes, John Jay, all used the term Natural Born. They only used it to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth. They NEVER used it to refer to the parents.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Your an IDIOT who can NOT comprehend.

          • All that you can do is call names.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            No, I'm making an observation. When someone is presented rulings and laws, and they can not comprehend, then calling you an IDIOT becomes an observation.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…" (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.

            (Continued

          • That legislation adds the children of US citizens born abroad to the existing Natural Born Citizens. The existing Natural Born Citizens were the US citizens who had been born in the USA, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or foreigners. That is the way that John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and, yes, John Jay, all used the term Natural Born. They only used it to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth. They NEVER used it to refer to the parents.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You will defend your Messiah no matter HOW BIG an IDIOT you prove yourself to be.

          • Obama was born in Hawaii, and he is a Natural Born US Citizen. That is why his election was confirmed unanimously by the US Congress.

            "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

            Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

            “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

            Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

            The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

            “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So your going to hold to a dictionary definition and what others OPINIONS ARE instead of the ACTUAL FIRST CONGRESS definition which is:
            The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…" (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.

            Obama defenders really want their Messiah to be natural born.
            OPINIONS far trump First Congress.

          • The actual first US Congress definition ADDED the children of US Citizens born abroad to the existing definition, which was simply birth in the USA. The addition meant that ALL children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) are Natural Born Citizens AND that when the children of US parents are born overseas, they are ALSO Natural Born Citizens.

            Here is an example of how they used the phrase Natural Born Citizen at about the time that the Constitution was written:

            "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

            As a result, leading Constitutional scholars agree that:

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            And that is the way that MANY US Courts have been ruling:

            Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

            “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

            Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

            “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

            Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

            “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

          • Some more who agree with Meese and with the above rulings:

            There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."

            Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born "on the soil" a natural-born citizen. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2….

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            That is exactly what these rulings state. They made the rulings based off the 1965 Immigration Act.

            Now, again, HOW DOES THE 1965 IMMIGRATION ACT RELATE TO OBAMA WHO WAS BORN IN 1961?

            AS OF 1961 The terms "Natural born" and "Native born" were DEFINED BY SCOTUS IN THESE RULINGS:

            U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg, Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15.

            Now, where are your cases that PERTAIN TO OBAMA?

            You've made it VERY CLEAR you do NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of law. I've tried very hard to explain it to you. Maybe someone else can have success. Call an attorney and see if they can explain why your cases HAVE NO BEARING on Obama.

            The ONLY WAY your cases would have relevance to Obama is if HE WAS BORN IN 1965 OR LATER. Do you now try to claim he was?

            Believe what you wish. If you can't grasp a simple concept, such as this, then there is no hope for you.

            If you wish, continue to show yourself to be the idiot you are.

          • Re: "A "natural born" citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that's two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) — think Ronald Reagan — in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage AND there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace. "

            Who told you that? It is wrong.

            "

          • Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

            Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

            “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

            Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

          • Some more who agree with Meese:

            There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."

            Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born "on the soil" a natural-born citizen. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2….

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Point blank…… Your an IDIOT.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…" (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.

            Can't understand eh?

          • That legislation added the children of US citizens born abroad to the existing Natural Born Citizens.

            Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The longstanding English common-law principle of Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a parent(s) who are citizens of the nation.
            There is also the news item from the Boston Globe saying for presidential eligibility, "native born" does not equal "natural born.". This crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka "The People’s Lawyer." "The fact that the Constitution says "natural" instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen."

          • Re: "English common-law principle of Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a parent(s) who are citizens of the nation. "

            There is NO English common-law principle of jus sanguinis applying to citizenship. The British and American common law gave citizenship at birth only based on the location of birth. That is why Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, si right a you (and Bridgham) are wrong.

            The meaning of Natural Born in America, when the Constitution was written, referred only to citizenship due to the place of birth. There are no quotations from James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, or John Jay (Yes, even John Jay) that used the phrase Natural Born to refer to parents.

            A child born of Irish parents in the USA is both a native born citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Andrew Jackson, one of the most loyal of US presidents, had TWO Irish parents. Bridgham would argue that if Jackson ran for office today, he would not be eligible because of his parents. But there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution thought any such thing.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Rulings with definitions of "Natural born" (excerpts)
            Perkins v. Elg's (1939) actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.
            The U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

            Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.

            Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000 Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.

          • Re: The U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S..

            Answer: NO, it didn't. And in the key US Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark vs the US, the US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.

            That is why Meese, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, is right, and you are wrong.

            "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So the THREE SCOTUS rulings I just posted are wrong?

            Lets review US vs.ARK

            U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S.

            (CONTINUED)

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            (CONTINUED from previous post)

            The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
            In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett

            The Ark case is an example of NATIVE BORN. Must be NATURAL BORN to hold POTUS.

          • Re: "So the THREE SCOTUS rulings I just posted are wrong? "

            Answer: They are right. YOU are wrong. They did not say what you said.

            The holding in the Wong Kim Ark case was that every child born in the USA is Natural Born, except for the children of foreign diplomats:

            It said:

            It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

            EVERY child is natural born. Hence every native born child is natural born. Hence Wong Kim Ark, who was native born, was also Natural Born. Hence, Meese and Hatch and Graham are right, and you are wrong:

            Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

            Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

            “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

            Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

          • Re: "The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. "

            Answer: That is wrong too. The reason for the grandfather clause was to allow Alexander Hamilton, and a few others, who were not born in one of the 132 original colonies, to be eligible to become president. American-born leaders like John Adams, George Washington, etc–all considered themselves Natural Born Citizens due to their birth in one of the 132 original colonies.

            n 1803, shortly after the Constitution was adopted, St. George Tucker wrote the first extended commentary on the Constitution after its adoption, and he said:

            “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by the birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”

            So, as you can see, the way that they used the term Natural Born Citizen referred to the place of birth, and it included American geography before the USA was created. John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, etc. all used the phrase Natural Born the same way, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth, not to the parents.

          • Typo: 13 colonies, not 132.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So YOUR understanding (or probably those who are advising you) negate what was ruled?

            The terms "natural born" and "native born" have been DEFINED by the cases Minor v. Happersett, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and Perkins v. Elg.

            So, as you see, there is case law that defines the difference between Natural born and Native born. These rulings also define what tests must be met to be NATURAL BORN, born on US soil AND 2(TWO) US citizen parents. (plural)

            "Answer: That is wrong too. The reason for the grandfather clause was to allow Alexander Hamilton, and a few others, who were not born in one of the 132 original colonies, to be eligible to become president."

            As I said, they had to add the grandfather clause for those that were not born on US soil at the time of adoption of the Constitution. I did not feel the need to list them individually.

            So,again,are you ever going to post FACTS and not OPINIONS to back your position? You can't because there is none.

          • The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY was that not one single member of the 535 members believed that the US Supreme Court had definec Natural Born Citizen to mean "two citizen parents."

            And, it didn't. Neither of those cases you mention ruled that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. The Minor v Happersett case at most said that at one time there had been doubt. Well, you know, there was doubt at one time whether the world was round. Somebody told you that they had ruled, but they didn't. And the same holds for the US Supreme Court on President Chester Alan Arthur. It did not rule either.

            And the Wong Kim Ark case resolved all doubt. It ruled, six to two (one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. That is a fact.

            It is also a fact that the Us Electoral College, the body specified by the US Constitution to actually conduct the election that is final, gave Obama exactly the same number of votes that he won in the general election. Not even one of the electors changed her or his vote. Not even one. Surely if even one of the electors had believed that the US Supreme Court had ruled that two citizen parents were required, she or he would have voted against Obama. The same also applies to the 535 members of Congress, already mentioned.

            John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, etc. all used the phrase Natural Born the same way, to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth, not to the parents.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            "The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY was that not one single member of the 535 members believed that the US Supreme Court had definec Natural Born Citizen to mean "two citizen parents." "

            Are you mind reading again? Where is your PROOF? Yet, MORE opinions.

            "And, it didn't. Neither of those cases you mention ruled that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents."

            YET MORE OPINIONS. I gave you PROOF of the rulings. Now give me PROOF they were the wrong holdings.

            You CAN'T this is why you only offer OPINIONS.

            Do you even UNDERSTAND the difference between PROOF and OPINIONS?

            I handed you 3 CASE LAW that defined "natural born" and "native born".
            So you are AGAIN reading minds and stating that what they RULED was not what they MEANT. SHOW PROOF.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Post the rulings that state otherwise. "Said" is an OPINION.

            Sen. Graham and Sen. Hatch are entitled to an OPINION, does NOT make them law.

            I posted complete RULINGS which DEFINE natural born and native born. You would like to BELIEVE they are wrong and that is where you have issues. You do NOT want to accept FACTS. You CLAIM I am wrong? Post the RULINGS that state otherwise. NOT OPINIONS, but rulings.

            You can't.

            Let me see you post the HOLDING of the Wong Ark case.

          • Here are some rulings:

            Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

            "Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

            As you can see, the children of two citizens of Romania (not naturalized US citizens, but citizens of Romania) are described as natural born US citizens. Why? Because they were born in the USA.

            And: “Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

            "Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

            So even the children of an illegal immigrant are called natural-born. Why? Because they were born in the USA.

            and:

            Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

            "The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

            The third child was born in the USA. The others were not.

            These all stem from the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which held that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            EVERY case law you just cited was ruled under the 1965 Immigration Act. This law was NOT IN EFFECT when Obama was born. Therefore it can NOT be used when relating to him. He is BOUND by laws in EFFECT at the time of his birth. WHY do you think this law was enacted? Because children born of FOREIGN parents were NOT citizens. Have you heard of the term "Anchor babies"?

            "These all stem from the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which held that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. "

            WRONG. The final holding in the Wong Ark case was he was NATIVE BORN.
            Where is your proof this is wrong? I handed you the case.

            So again, show PROOF, (that would be in effect at the time of Obama's birth) of your claims.

          • The rulings all said that the children were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

            That definition also applied when the US Constitution was written: Here are some examples from about the time:

            "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

            "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Claim what ever you wish.

            As I have stated and shown, there is case laws which define "Natural born" and "Native born".

            Unless, and until, rulings by SCOTUS are either overturned or changed, they are the ruling law. In this case it was with the 1965 Immigration Act.

            Case law at the time of Obama's birth states he is native born (which he openly admits) and is ineligible to hold POTUS.

            I've tried to explain the concept to you. You refuse to understand. Maybe someone else, an attorney maybe, can explain in a way you can understand.

            You are now just showing yourself to be an idiot and grasping at straws.

          • From the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

            "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            These are excerpts from the opinions of HOW they reached their verdicts. They did take heed from laws in effect at the time in England. As Colonist, this was unchartered territory and they didn't have much to draw on.
            This was not the ruling tho.

            Post the FINAL RULING. It states "NATIVE BORN"

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

            "'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."

            (CONTINUED)

          • That's right. There was no doubt about people who were born in the USA of two citizen parents. There is no doubt that wearing both suspenders and a belt will hold pants up. The question is whether a belt alone or suspenders alone will do the job. You notice that the Minor case does not say. Why not? Because in the Minor case the defendant had both parents and birth in the country going for her, and so it was not necessary to deal with one or the other.

            Wong Kim Ark, was different. He had two parents who were NOT citizens, but he was born in the USA. The issue was whether he was a citizen, not whether he was a Natural Born Citizen. Why not? Because he wasn't running for president. His problem was whether he was a citizen so that he would not be deported.

            How did the US Supreme Court resolve the question of whether he was a citizen. It ruled that he was Natural Born, as were all persons born in the USA (other than the children of foreign diplomats), and because he was Natural Born, he must be a citizen.

            In the process, the US Supreme Court defined Natural Born, ruling that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats). Subsequent rulings (quoted above) and the action of the US Congress and the Electoral College in the Obama election and the definitions of Meese (Ronald Reagan's attorney general), all hold that a Natural Born Citizen is, duh, a US Citizen who was Natural Born.

          • THAT is all made up, including the graphic. The US Supreme Court has never ruled that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents. In fact, it has ruled that EVERY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

            Meese is right, and you and the birther site you cite, are both wrong:

            "
            "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • The Minor v Happersett ruling was overturned by the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which held that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is natural born.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN.

            The holding in the Minor vs. Happersett WAS NOT OVERTURNED by the Ark ruling.
            In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray QUOTED DIRECTLY from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett

            Where's your PROOF the Happersett holding was overturned? There is NONE.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You can't be THAT IGNORANT CAN YOU? IF you know how to research, the case numbers are right there. I DARE YOU TO PROVE THEM WRONG! You CAN'T.

            Typical OBAMAMASSIAH complex. EVERYONE IS WRONG BUT YOU. No way could Obama be a fraud. No way would the King lie.

            You claim Meese's OPINION is correct? SHOW CASE LAW THAT SUPPORTS IT.

            Again, YOU CAN'T.

            Keep lying. Keep citing OPINIONS. Because that's ALL YOU HAVE, OPINIONS.

            Oh and for the record, GRAPHICS, by nature, ARE MADE UP. LOL

          • The Wong Kim Ark decision revolves completely around the meaning of Natural Born, and the majority of justices (six to two) held that the meaning stems from the common law and means “born in the country (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats)”.

            This meaning of Natural Born Citizen has been followed in dozens of federal court cases since then. For example:

            Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

            “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

            The parents are both Romanian, the children are Natural Born Citizens.” What makes them Natural Born Citizens? Their birth in the USA.

            And:

            Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

            “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

            Even the US-born children of illegal immigrants are considered Natural Born Citizens.

            And:

            Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

            “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

            Two children are not citizens at all. One is a natural-born citizen. Why? Because she was born in the USA.

            And:

            State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):

            “According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.”

            In this case, the words natural-born citizen is used as a synonym for native-born.

            This should not be surprising. The common way of using the phrase Natural Born Citizen for years was as a synonym to native-born citizen. For example, in registering for the draft during World War I, men were asked whether they were citizens or not, and then, if they were citizens, whether they were naturalized or Natural Born Citizens. (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02E7D8123AE433A25750C2A9639C946696D6CF)
            February 22, 2010, 8:19 pm

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The Wong Ark case is an example of "Native born" for in it's ruling it states so. This, in and of itself, shows a distinction between "Natural born" and "Native Born".

            AGAIN, all the case law you cited revolves around the 1965 Immigration Act. This was NOT in effect at the birth of Obama and therefore does not pertain to his situation.

            "In this case, the words natural-born citizen is used as a synonym for native-born."

            I don't see the correlation, but then again, neither did the Supreme Court when they further defined the definitions of "Natural Born" and "Native Born" with the cases:

            Minor v. Happersett, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg

            This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15.

            So AGAIN, cite case law RELEVANT to the year 1961.

          • The ruling was that Wong was a citizen. That is not a distinction. The ruling also said that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

            Wong was born in the USA, and his parents were not foreign diplomats, so he also must have been Natural Born. When a person is both left-handed and a citizen, she or he is a left-handed citizen. And when a person is both red-headed and a citizen, a red-headed citizen, and when someone is both Natural Born and a US Citizen, she or he is, duh, a Natural Born Citizen.

            That is why Meese, wrote:

            “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            (And notice that the date of the book is three years before the 2008 election.)

          • Some more who agree with Meese:

            There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."

            Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born "on the soil" a natural-born citizen.
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Why won't you post the ruling in the Wong Ark case as I have? You will then see he was ruled a "NATIVE BORN".

            You don't seem to understand the concept of how laws work. In 2005, when Meese wrote his book, this was a correct understanding of the law. This is NOT TRUE for the year of Obama's birth in 1961.

            When Obama was born, there were SCOTUS rulings which DEFINED "natural born" and "native born".
            These were cases:
            Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15,
            Perkins v. Elg,
            U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
            Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000

            These definitions were not changed until the 1965 Immigration Act. Upon this act is where Meese obtained his description. This was NOT the valid definition in 1961 when Obama was born.

            Your looking like the idiot you are. I would advise you to stop until you understand the law.

          • All people who are native born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, are NATURAL BORN.

            Here is the decision in the Wong Kim Ark case:

            "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

            Order affirmed. "

            That does not include the words "native born." It simply rules that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and cannot be deported, which was the issue in the case. Since he was not running for president, there was no reason to rule that he was a Natural Born Citizen. However, the court DID rule that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is NATURAL BORN.

            The meaning of Natural Born at the time that the constitution was written referred ONLY to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents. Thus the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in 1961 included ALL US Citizens who were born in the USA, as was stated in 1829:

            "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, and that is why not a single elector in the US Electoral College changed her or his vote, and the chief justice of the United States, a conservative Republican, swore in Obama, and the US Supreme Court has not called a single birther case.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            4. If you're not born here, or if your parents aren't Americans, then the only way you get citizenship is via marriage or naturalization — a "naturalized" citizen is a citizen as the result of these processes — think Arnold Schwarzenegger.

            Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
            ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American.

            A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

            In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

            (continued)

          • If you are not born here, OR your parents were not US citizens if you were born abroad, you cannot be eligible. If you were born here, and your parents were not foreign diplomats, you are eligible. That is the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen, as Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's Attorney general, concluded in his book (sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation:

            "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            It is absolutely true that naturalized US citizens cannot become president. But all other US citizens are Natural Born Citizens, and hence they are eligible.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Keep PRAYING your Messiah can come up with a fraudulent BC for his daddy.
            Your an IDIOT and you will FIGHT for your King till the END.

            Too bad Obama IS NOT a natural born citizen. Then he WOULD be eligible. Since he's NOT, IMPEACHMENT TIME!

            Shove the rules in your FACE and you STILL want to deny. What a joke everyone sees you to be.

          • "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

            “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

            Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

            “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

            Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

            “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

            The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

            “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The longstanding English common-law principle of Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a parent(s) who are citizens of the nation.
            There is also the news item from the Boston Globe saying for presidential eligibility, "native born" does not equal "natural born.". This crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka "The People’s Lawyer." "The fact that the Constitution says "natural" instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen."

          • IF Jus sanguinis applied, the writers of the US Constitution would have told us. Instead, they used the words Natural Born Citizen, which at the time that they wrote meant only citizenship due to the PLACE of birth. In Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy, Jus sanguinis applied to citizenship. But it never had in Britain or the Amerian colonies. The writers of the Constitution never used the phrase Natural Born Citizen to refer to the parents, not in anything that they ever wrote.

            That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, is right, and you are wrong.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The US Constitution used the term "natural born". SCOTUS defined it as born on US soil to TWO(2) US citizen parents.

            Perkins v. Elg The U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

            Citizen:

            On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. –. First.– On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:

            Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15 Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native-born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis) WITHOUT 2(TWO) US citizen parents.

            Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000 Declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.

          • "Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

          • The US Supreme Court never defined a Natural Born Citizen as requiring two citizen parents. That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, and that is why Meese is right and you are wrong.

          • Some more who agree with Meese:

            There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."

            Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born "on the soil" a natural-born citizen.
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2….

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            As I have said, I agree with Meese's definition as of 2005. He obtained this description from the 1965 Immigration Law.

            This law DOES NOT pertain to someone born in 1961.

            If you can get an understanding of the law, you will see you are wrong.

            To give you some what of an analogy:
            Someone commits murder in 1961. The death penalty is a sentencing option at this time. In 1965, the death penalty is ruled to no longer be a sentencing option. The guy is arrested, convicted of murder in 2005. Upon sentencing, they CAN give him the death penalty BECAUSE it was an option WHEN HE COMMITTED the crime.

            By continuing to quote Meese only shows you don't understand. I would highly suggest you stop posting until you understand the law. Your making yourself out to be the idiot you are.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            SCOTUS DID have rulings on the definitions of "Natural Born" and "Native born. It is also these definitions Obama is bound by.

            U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
            Perkins v. Elg
            Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15
            Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000

            Hate to tell you but the US Congress had to vote to affirm Obama. They did not, at that time, have a clear understanding of the different definitions. They could not vote against without evidence in hand.
            Many are now recognizing they made a mistake.

            And again, as of 2005, Meese was correct. Too bad it isn't the correct definition at the time of Obama's birth.

            If you are going to attempt a legal fight, at least understand the law. Failing to do so only shows you to be the idiot you are.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Meese was correct in his 2005 definition. He obtained this definition from the 1965 Immigration Act.

            This law can not be used as a definition for someone born in 1961. They are bound by laws in effect at the time of his birth.

            You just don't understand do you.

          • The law that applied before 1965 was the law of 1952, also known as the McCarren-Walter Act. Where birth in the United States is concerned it is not significantly different in any way from subsequent legislation. In other words, the laws after 1961 did not affect the status of children born in the USA.

            So Meese could not have been basing his conclusions on a law that did not apply. The same law applied.

            Moreover, where birth in the USA is concerned, the McCarran-Walter Act and subsequent legislation are the same as the 14th Amendment.

            The actual words in the McCarren-Walter Act of 1952 were:

            "
            Title III
            Section 301

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
            (1) A person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

            (There were others also, of course, but there was no difference between the law in 1952-1967 and subsequent law where citizenship due to birthj in the United States is concerned.

            MORE IMPORTANTLY, Meese wasn't discussing current laws. He was discussing the US Constitution, which is not changed by laws but only by Amendments to the US Constitution.

            Re: "This law can not be used as a definition for someone born in 1961. They are bound by laws in effect at the time of his birth. "

            Answer: As I said, the law in 1961 was just the same as in 1967. It was that everyone born in the USA and subject to its jurisdiction (meaning not a child of a foreign diplomat) was a US citizen at birth.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I'm sure that is what you would LIKE to believe. I'm sure that is your OPINION as to what Meese was referring to. You are a MIND READER after all.

            Fact IS, there IS SCOTUS RULING DEFINING Natural born and Native born.

            No other ruling came into play DEFINING natural born and native born until 1965. Try to twist it anyway you wish. It's just not so.

            Use common sense even. IF the definition of native and natural born was the same in 1967 as in 1961, WHY did they have to enact the Immigration Act of 1965? BECAUSE the original definitions DENIED certain children to be NATURAL BORN. This is where the term ANCHOR BABIES came from.

            You are trying hard to prove your King is legit. Too bad it's not working.

            Try again.

          • Re: "Fact IS, there IS SCOTUS RULING DEFINING Natural born and Native born. "

            YES, we agree. There is a SCOTUS ruling, the Wong Kim Ark case, which clearly defined Natural Born as including ALL native-born persons born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.

            The ruling said:

            "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

            That clearly says that in England, and in the 13 American colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED every child (except for the children of foreign ambassadors) who was born in the USA is Natural Born.

            The act of 1952, which applied in 1961, said that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) was a citizen at birth. EVERY child.

            That is why Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general was right:

            ""Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.] "

            And you are wrong.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You are trying awful hard to defend the usurper.

            You truly DO NOT understand.

            You are wrong.

            Wong Kim Ark was ruled as a NATIVE BORN. This is DIFFERENT than NATURAL BORN.

            "The act of 1952, which applied in 1961, said that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) was a CITIZEN at birth. EVERY child"

            cit·i·zen   /ˈsɪtəzən, -sən/ Show Spelled
            [sit-uh-zuhn, -suhn] Show IPA

            –noun
            1. a NATIVE or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection ( distinguished from alien)

            NATIVE BORN is INELIGIBLE to hold POTUS.

            Until you UNDERSTAND the law, this is a lost conversation.

  3. Vernon Clayson says:

    We may as well forget the birth certificate issue, we can complain but the very people, Congress and the courts, that could do something about it choose to ignore it. Few people alive today will ever hear the truth about Obama and how he came to power, those that dictate to us, the Congress, the courts and the power elite will never admit their complicity in the greatest hoax known to mankind. It dwarfs even the ages old rot of religion even though it, the Obama phenomenon, has the fervor of religion. Blind in their devotions, many seem to believe Obama is the coming, here to lead us from darkness to light. Forget the birth certificate, there probably isn't one.and no politician dares to call him out.

  4. D Carnahan says:

    You Didn't accept my answer, and my ideas? Ok, I had better not see them them printed again.

  5. Betsy K. Larsen says:

    “Natural Born” Does not Equal “Loyal Citizen”………..YA THINK? This has been proven how many times by the “natural born terrorists” who terrorize their OWN country and people! GI Jane for one………how about the filthy muslimE who MURDERED how many in Ft. Hood that day? And include the terrorists who are welcomed into this country, like the Jordanian freak of nature from Texas?

    Being born here, in America does not NATURALLY make one LOYAL! I am not a racist by nature, but the story of the last few years with this “man” of color in office has given me great pause for thought, as to if I would ever vote for anyone who is not A WHITER SHADE OF PALE!!! I didn’t vote for this creeep to begin with, his name was all I needed to stop me cold! The name, and then the LIES of “hope and change”………if it sounds too good to be true, then it MUST BE!!! His “wife” and her comment about not being proud of “her” country until then, only proved that my gut instinct was right on cue! Another clue is the backing of Hollywood……….when they support someone, it pays to pay close attention………….especially if oprah is involved…………this is one very dangerous woman. And she was greatly responsible for this LIAR AND MUSLIME BEING ELECTED! Be very careful of what you wish for, you might just get it. And the stupid, foolish Americans who put this creep into office got their wish…………to the great displeasure of those of us who knew better……..and to America’s downfall. As the X Files line went…….TRUST NO ONE!!!

  6. oif2003 says:

    According to the resolution on John McCain. the definition of natural born citizen requires both parents be citizens. Obama himself voted on this resolution. but does that not make Obama ineligible. a resolution in which Obama himself declared he was not a Natural born citizen? why is it then all this crap over a Birth Certificate that in no way shape or form can change the fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen? I'm sick of this RACE CARD crap as well. Obama is half white, that dog won't hunt, enough already. this bastard needs removed from the white house, TREASON TRIALS to follow. for every single ass wipe that was involved in this fraud

    • If you pass a resolution that says that a rose is a flower and do not pass one that says that a tulip is a flower does that mean that a tulip is not a flower? Obviously not. So, even if you passed a resolution that said that one man who had two citizen parents was a natural born citizen, that would not mean that someone else who qualified under a different criterion was not a natural born citizen.

      Another way of looking at the analogy. You would not need to pass a resolution that said that a rose is a flower. why not? Because everyone knows that it is a flower. Then why pass a resolution on McCain? Obviously because there was doubt. And, if they were doing that, why not pass one on Obama? Because there was NO doubt.

      That resolution applied only to John McCain, and it said that because he was born on a US base and was born to two US citizen parents he was a Natural Born Citizen. It does not mean that everyone has to be born on a US base to be a Natural Born Citizen, and it also does not mean that everyone does not have to have two US citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

      There is an obvious reason that there was no similar resolution proposed for Obama. It is so Obvious that you should have grasped it by now. The reason was, duh, that it was OBVIOUS that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Anyone who has read the writings of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, James Madison and, yes, John Jay, knows that they never used the phrase Natural Born to refer to anything other than citizenship due to the location of birth. Only the location, not the parents. In other words, Obama falls under the first of the two criteria for Natural Born Citizens, birth in the jurisdiction. McCain falls under the second criterion, the one created by statute (not the original meaning), birth abroad to citizen parents.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        In TRUE OBAMAMESSIAH STYLE. As Ellen is trying to state, THE RULES apply to others but NOT OBAMA. The attack against McCain was a smoke screen to hide the fact Obama does NOT have the credentials to sit as POTUS.

    • That resolution applied only to John McCain, and it said that because he was born on a US base and was born to two US citizen parents he was a Natural Born Citizen. It does not mean that everyone has to be born on a US base to be a Natural Born Citizen, and it also does not mean that everyone does not have to have two US citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.

      There is an obvious reason that there was no similar resolution proposed for Obama. Why not? Because it was OBVIOUS that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Anyone who has read the writings of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, James Madison and, yes, John Jay, knows that they never used the phrase Natural Born to refer to anything other than citizenship due to the location of birth. Only the location, not the parents. In other words, Obama falls under the first of the two criteria for Natural Born Citizens, birth in the jurisdiction. McCain falls under the second criterion, the one created by statute (not the original meaning), birth abroad to citizen parents.

      • That should read: "…and it also does not mean that everyone has to have two citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen."

  7. All children born in the USA (other than the children of foreign diplomats) are subject to the laws of the USA, as for that matter are all adults (other than foreign diplomats) who live in the USA.

    Being a dual national does not change that fact. Being subject to the jurisdiction of Britain does not make him NOT subject to the laws of the USA.

    Say that a rich kid was born a dual national and was subject to the tax laws of both Britain and the USA. If he had to pay taxes in both, well then he had to pay taxes in both. So, obviously, being subject to the laws in Britain does not make anyone not subject to the laws in the USA.

    So, as you see Dual Nationality has no effect on US jurisdiction. And it has no effect on Natural Born status for the obvious reason that the writers of the US Constitution did not say "no dual nationals" or "no one without two US parents" or "other than those who are subject to the jurisdiction of other countries."

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      Again, it DOES matter.

      The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution

      • Yes, he or she is a dual national. That we know. That means that he is subject to the jurisdiction of two countries. But being subject to the jurisdiction of two countries means subject to the jurisdiction of both of those countries. It does not remove the jurisdiction of one of them. Obama, born in the USA, was subject to the US at birth.

        There is not a word in the US Constitution about dual nationality affecting Natural Born status, nor did a single writer of the US Constitution write any articles on the subject. The meaning of Natural Born when they wrote the Constitution referred only to the place of birth.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          Again, you can not hold dual citizenship and be POTUS.

          • Again. YES you can, and Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual national at the time that he was president, having been made a full citizen of France.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Again, someone should tell Chester A. Arthur, 22nd President, he was wronged.

            HE wasn't allowed.

          • Chester A. Arthur was allowed. He served the remainder of Garfield's term. He wasn't thrown out, he lost the nomination to a more popular Republican.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            And he was DENIED Republican renomination in 1884.

          • Somebody, Blaine, was more popular than he was.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Of course. History is wrong and YOU are right.

            You have a problem with comprehension as you have proved.

            Education is your friend.

          • The US Supreme Court took no action on Arthur, and Arthur lost to Blaine at the Republican convention, who was more popular.

            Education is your friend.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So NOW your saying the SCOTUS DID rule on Arthur? Get your stories straight.

            Arthur was DENIED renomination by the Republican party.

            Yes, education is your friend. Try REAL textbooks and not the comics next time.

          • The US Supreme Court took NO action on Arthur, and Arthur lost to Blaine at the Republican convention, who was more popular.

            Education is your friend. No textbook has ever said that the US Supreme Court ruled on Arthur's Natural Born Citizen status. And none has said that Arthur's Natural Born Citizen status was a significant issue at the Republican convention in which he lost to Blaine.

            Eduction is your friend.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Just because YOU refuse to accept historical FACTS doesn't make them wrong.

            Education is your friend.

          • Show a history book or Supreme Court case that shows either that the Supreme Court took action on Arthur (It didn't) or that the issue of Arthur's Natural Born Citizenship affected the convention in which Blaine won the nomination.

            Just because you make up alleged "historical facts" does not make them what actually happened.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Facts are in the SCOTUS rulings. Because you are too lazy or inept to search and read these rulings yourself, will not cause me to do it for you.

            Just because you don't have the ability to research the ruling doesn't invalidate it.
            The ruling IS there as others have also found.
            Take some time and research yourself. Don't just take others word for it. It might just open your eyes.

  8. Seeks_the_truth says:

    Obama's attempt to discredit McCain by bringing in the question of his citizenship when it was OBVIOUS does not constitute as an attack?

    And Obama does NOT have to fall under ALL criteria?

    The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution

    • When did Obama bring up the question of McCain's citizenship? When?

      Re having to fall under all criteria? It is impossible to fall under all criteria. One criterion is birth in the USA. The other is birth abroad to US citizen parents. You cannot be both born in the USA and born abroad.

      Re the British Nationality Act. Being a dual national of Britain and the USA does not remove the jurisdiction of the USA. It you were born within the jurisdiction of the USA, and you are a citizen, you are a Natural Born Citizen.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        As stated, the same criteria of Obama as DUAL US citizen parents AND born on US soil OR US jurisdiction.

        "Re the British Nationality Act. Being a dual national of Britain and the USA does not remove the jurisdiction of the USA. It you were born within the jurisdiction of the USA, and you are a citizen, you are a Natural Born Citizen."
        I agree, it does not REMOVE US citizenship (if you are entitled to it) BUT you can not hold the position of POTUS with dual citizenship.

        • No, it's OR. Either you are born in US jurisdiction or you are born overseas to US parents.

          “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

          The fact that Obama was a dual citizen of the USA and Britain at birth has no effect on his Natural Born Citizen status. The writers of the Constitution made no mention of dual citizenship, and the definition of Natural Born that they used referred only to the place of birth.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            The writers of the Constitution had LOYALTY in mind when they would not accept dual citizenship capable of holding the position of POTUS.

            The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section-5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if HIS FATHER is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. (BHO Senior was British so Jr. is ALSO British) which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution

          • They had a certain amount of loyalty. The question is how much? Senators and Congressmen can be naturalized citizens. There is no requirement (not age, not residency, not even citizenship) for members of the US Supreme Court. In theory, a US Supreme Court Justice could be a 12-year old Russian.

            So the question is what are the requirements for being president? A person must be at least 35–not 40 or 50. He or she must have resided in the USA for 14 years, not all of their lives, not 20 years, only 14.

            And a president must be a Natural Born Citizen. That means that he or she must, of course be a citizen. And he or she cannot be naturalized because they must be natural born.

            Anything else? No. There is no mention of dual nationality, none at all, and none of the writers or American leaders at the time ever wrote about it. The meaning of Natural Born at the time had no reference to dual nationality, and it had no reference to parents. It referred only to the PLACE of birth.

            So, the British Nationality Act, or for that matter any country's law, has no effect. Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual national when he was president, having been made a full voting citizen of France. Any country can pass a law saying that candidate X is a citizen of that country, and that would not make her or him ineligible.

            And, as for the worries about loyalty. Americans had had an experience with an American with THREE generations of American parents having been disloyal, Benedict Arnold (whose grandparents were on the Mayflower or another early boat). And the had experience with foreigners who were loyal, Lafayette, Steuben, Polaski. They wanted to draw a line.

            What was the line? That the president must be a citizen. That she or he cannot be naturalized, and hence much have been a citizen at birth (which in those days meant birth in the country). That she or he must have lived in the USA for 14 years.

            But there is no mention of the parents of the president affecting the matter, and that was not the meaning of Natural Born. And there is no mention of dual nationality affecting the matter, and Thomas Jefferson actually WAS a dual national.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I did not ask for your OPINION. It IS FACT you can NOT hold POTUS and have dual citizenship. This was ruled on by SCOTUS with Chester Arthur. Do you have FACT besides what you BELIEVE?

          • The fact is that the US Supreme Court did not rule on Chester Arthur.

            Like the Leahy comment creation of yours, the US Supreme Court ruling on Arthur is a fantasy. Do you get these "facts" out of your dreams?

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Of course history is wrong and your OPINION is right.

            You have a proven issue with comprehension.

            Education is your friend.

          • There is NO SCOTUS ruling. Just because you say that there is one does not mean that it is the truth.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Just because YOU can't find it, doesn't make it not there. Many others have found it besides myself.

          • No one has found it. Not you, and not anyone else. It does not exist. There was no SCOTUS ruling against Chester Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Ok, you believe what you wish to. It is, after all, still a free country.

            Does not change the fact there IS a SCOTUS ruling against Chester A. Arthur that it seem myself and others can find, but not you.

            I take it your too inept (or too lazy) to search the SCOTUS archives. I'll give you a bigger hint. Look in the volume from 1884.

            You ARE aware not EVERYTHING is on the internet. If you pick up an ACTUAL book, you just might find it.

          • There is no US Supreme Court ruling against Arthur. If you could find it, you could cite it.

          • There is NO US Supreme Court ruling against Arthur on the issue of his Natural Born Citizen status.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            There is, you just don't want to believe it.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Why should I spoon feed you information you are too lazy or inept to find on your own? I did give you a couple lines and you claimed they were false. What good would it do to hand you the ENTIRE ruling. You must see it for yourself to believe.

            Now get out of your mama's basement and go do some research.

          • There is NO US Supreme Court ruling against Arthur on the issue of his Natural Born Citizen status.

            You made the claim. It is up to you to show that it is true. The few words that you quoted were not even from the US Supreme Court.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Keep dreaming. You know I'm right and your afraid.

            I did show proof. You refuse to accept it like the good sheep you are.

            I don't care if you believe it or not. It is there. Others have seen it. Others have posted it.

          • You did not show proof.

            There is NO US Supreme Court ruling against Arthur on the issue of his Natural Born Citizen status.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I grow tired of your childish antics. Proof was shown. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Others have seen the same ruling. Others have posted the same ruling.

            To put it plainly. I don't care if YOU believe it or not.
            You are obviously sitting in mommies basement spewing what others have spoon fed you.

            It's going to destroy you when your Messiah is impeached.

  9. Seeks_the_truth says:

    It SHOULD read, but it DOESN'T.

    "That is the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction;" it means having to obey the laws. "

    That is YOUR interpretation.

    • Are you saying that dual nationals in the USA are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA and hence do not have to obey the US laws?

      Are you saying that a dual national is no longer under US jurisdiction?

      If so, what do you base that idea on?

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        What I'm saying is you can not hold seat of POTUS while having dual citizenship. I take it that is hard for you to comprehend.

        Are you saying you can? If so what do you base your ideas on?

        • That is your opinion, but it is not based on anything. There is NO mention of dual citizenship in the US Constitution. The meaning of Natural Born that they used referred only to the place of birth and made no mention of dual citizenship.

          I take it that it is hard for YOU to comprehend that, but there is nothing in the US Constitution nor in the meaning of Natural Born used by the Americans that includes a reference to dual nationality. In fact, Thomas Jefferson actually WAS a dual national when he was president. Right while he was president.

          He had been made a full citizen of France (full, meaning voting rights and the right to run for office) by the French Assembly during the French Revolution.

          Which brings up another point about dual nationality: A foreign country can pass a law making someone a dual national whenever it wants. If John Smith is a candidate for president, and Mongolia does not like him, Mongolia could make him a Mongolian citizen, and the dual citizenship theory you espouse, Smith would no longer be eligible.

          Or, if you switch to "it has to be a dual national at birth," which is possible (but dumb, the issue is not how a child behaves, it is how the adult behaves), then a country could pass a law saying that all the citizens of Texas, say, were also Mexican citizens–and none of them would be eligible.

          The fact is that our laws do not allow foreign citizenship laws to jerk us around. They have no effect on our citizenship and certainly not on the meaning of Natural Born.

          Re: "Are you saying you can?"

          Yes, you can be president and a dual national when you are president–and Thomas Jefferson was. And, you can be president and a dual national at birth and when you were young (which lapsed), like Barack Obama. He received every single electoral vote from the Electoral College that he won in the general election, meaning that not one single elector believed that the citizenship of his father or dual nationality at birth had any effect on Obama's Natural Born Citizen status, and the same went for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election unanimously. And he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You are stating that you CAN hold DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND be POTUS? I believe you better read the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments. OBVIOUSLY you have yet to read it.

            Someone better go tell Chester A. Arthur (September 19, 1881 until March 4, 1885) he was wronged.

            Who else does this sound like?

          • Re: "You are stating that you CAN hold DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND be POTUS? "

            Answer: YES, and Thomas Jefferson was a dual national at the time that he was president.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            And again, you are WRONG.

          • And, again, you are WRONG. The reason that the Electoral College gave Obama every single vote that he won in the general election was that not one single Elector thought that the citizenship of Obama's father or dual nationality has any effect on Natural Born Citizen status. And the same was true of the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election unanimously. And the US Supreme Court has turned down every birther case.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            " not one single Elector thought " Now your a mind reader. You have not offered FACTS only your OPINION.

            As stated, you have a problem with comprehension.

            Education is your friend.

          • The reason that the Electoral College gave Obama every single vote that he won in the general election was that not one single Elector thought that the citizenship of Obama's father or dual nationality has any effect on Natural Born Citizen status. And the same was true of the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election unanimously. And the US Supreme Court has turned down every birther case.

            And further confirmation would be that IF any Elector or member of Congress had thought that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen, she or he could have gone to the press and they would have published that fact. You say that the press would not have published? Sure it would; the highly unusual view of an Elector or a member of Congress would always be news, and would sell newspapers–which is the criterion.

            So not one Elector or Congressman voted other than the results of the general election. Not one voted indicating that she or he believed that Obama was not eligible, and not one of them went to the press with a story saying that they did not believe that Obama was eligible.

            And Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, who happens to be a conservative. And the US Supreme Court had not called a single birther case. And no committee in Congress has called an investigation.

            These are the facts. Education is your friend.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Just like Obama won the Caucus by fraud. He lost the Primary Election but won the Caucus by the voter intimidation of his friends the Black Panthers. So lets look at the REAL facts here. He DID NOT win the popular election. He DID NOT win the Primaries. But somehow he WON the Caucuses.

            The Black Panthers then had a FEDERAL charge of voter intimidation against them that was dropped by… guess who and what.

            Obama should NEVER had been on the ballot to start.

            There's NO DOUBT how he got elected. Fraud works every time.

            Lets get the FULL FACTS out there.

            Yes, EDUCATION is your friend.

          • You are trying to change the subject.

            Caucuses are run by STATES. There was no state charge of any kind against the Black Panthers for intimidating voters during caucuses.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Change the subject? I was under the impression we were "discussing" whether or not Obama was ineligible to hold POTUS?
            There are MANY PROVEN reasons he is ineligible. It doesn't just rest on the fact his BC is/isn't real/fake.

            As far as Black Panthers, there WAS Federal charges brought against them.There WAS a charge of voter intimidation. There WAS accusations of fraud in the Caucuses. Don't you wonder how Federal charges were dropped EVEN THOUGH they had indisputable FACTS. Eye witnesses, many of them black?
            Guess who got them dropped.

            Are you trying to say this is not true? If so, in all due respect, I won't continue discussing with you. You are not informed on current events and can not make a valid argument.

          • Obama is not only eligible to be the US president. He IS the US president, having received all the votes in the Electoral College that he received in the general election, and having been confirmed by the US Congress unanimously, and having been sworn in by that RINO, the Chief Justice of the USA.

            It was YOU who claimed that the Black Panthers intimidated the voters in the caucuses. This claim turns out to be like your claim that Senator Lehey said that Obama was not eligible and that the US Supreme Court ruled against Chester Alan Arthur–made up.

            IF there had been evidence of intimidation in the caucuses, the state district attorneys would have brought criminal charges because those were state caucuses. There were no state charges.

            You claim that there were "indisputable facts" but there were no state prosecutions. Why not? Probably because there was no evidence.
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti

            The above shows that the claim of intimidation took place in a non caucus state. It was not during the caucuses or primaries, it was during the general election, and it was two guys standing in front of a primarily black election district, one of whom carried a stick. To be sure, a charge could be brought against that guy–but hardly against the party, unless there is other evidence and unless it was widespread, which it wasn't. And who could bring the charges? Why both the state and the federal government–and neither did.

            Obama was born in Hawaii as his official birth certificate and long-form birth certificates show. The director of health of Hawaii certified that she saw the long-form birth certificate being copied, and that it was exactly the same as the document in the files. Three Republican officials also verified that Obama was born in Hawaii, of whom two stated that they had seen the original document in the files and that it showed that he was born in Hawaii.

            There were notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, and they were not ads. They were only the official notices of births sent to the papers by the state, which could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth outside of a hospital because in such cases it demanded witness statements.

            And children born outside of the USA require US visas or to be entered on their mother's US passport to get to the USA, and there is no such 1961 document or application for it that has been found for Obama.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Obama is a usurper on MANY CHARGES.

            Just like he.. ahem … won the Caucuses.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Pahttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justic
            There were NO CHARGES? Then how were they DROPPED?

            I don't claim Obama is/not a good President. I say there are MANY PROVED CHARGES why Obama is a usurper.
            If you did a little research, and didn't just hang on if/if not Obama's BC is valid, you will see he is ineligible to hold POTUS. I'm challenging you to find the truth. Let the FACTS lead you. You can't read a book from the middle, you can't see the truth from the middle. Read the facts for yourself. Don't get it from friends or the media. Don't stick by your guns "just because".
            The truth will scare you.

            To quote a great man MLKJR "The truth will set you free!"

          • NONE OF THOSE REFERENCES SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT CAUCUSES.

            There was an alleged incident with two guys, not during the Caucuses and only at one voting station in Philadelphia. Obama would have won the election without that precinct.

            There federal charges, but no state charges. Why not? Because there wasn't sufficient evidence.

            Obama was born in Hawaii and hence is a Natural Born US Citizen. He received every Electoral Vote that he won in the general election. So not one Elector changed her or his vote. His election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress. He was sworn in by that RINO, the Chief Justice of the United States.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            No, they are not about the Caucuses themselves. They are about the charges you said DID NOT EXIST.

            In case your unaware, DOJ charges trump State charges.

            You keep believing. There was OVERWHELMING evidence of fraud at the Caucuses. Obama should NOT have even been ON the Presidential ballot. Officials are wondering WHY AND HOW the charges were dropped. Are you that naive or do you choose to close your eyes?

          • YOU said that the Black Panthers had interfered with the caucuses. I said there were not STATE charges. Why not? No evidence. DOJ charges do not trump state charges. Both are allowed to charge, and in this case the state did not do so–though it was more directly involved in the election (which was for a lot of other offices besides President, you know) than the federal government.

            Hillary Clinton, Obama's main rival, acknowledged that Obama won the caucuses.

            Obama won the nomination of the Democrat Party, and was elected the President of the United States, and he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I DID say they interfered with the Caucuses. That is what VOTER INTIMIDATION is.

            Yes, BOTH are allowed to charge. DOJ are a more serious charge and OBVIOUSLY there was ENOUGH EVIDENCE to charge.

            Clinton: called a concession speech. Does not mean she did not question the validity.

            Um yea, how do you think he is the sitting President?

            Does not mean he is not INELIGIBLE.

          • Obama, having been born in the USA, in Hawaii, is eligible. He as elected president and received a majority of the Electoral College. His election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress. He was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

            The allegations of voter intimidation at the caucuses are simply allegations. They have nothing to do with the Black Panther Party, and the states where the caucuses were held did not file criminal charges or even launch an investigation.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Keep defending your Messiah. It's really going to make you cry when he is dethroned.

            At least you admit your racist. You agree with racism.

            Obama IS a usurper. FACTS say this to be so. Started in the Primaries. Continues to now. There is overwhelming evidence to support these facts.

            If it was just ALLEGATIONS of voter intimidation the DOJ would NOT have filed charges, as they did. This IS fact. The DOJ DID file charges. Came to the ruling and all of a sudden it was dropped. Why? Guess who got them off? I take it you would have no issues with the KKK doing the SAME correct?
            You have now proved yourself to be a racist and refuse to accept facts. You are both ignorant and naive.

            Obama WILL be shown to be the usurper he IS.

            Take your head out and take a breath.

          • Obama was elected, confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            An BECAUSE he was "unanimously" elected, this trumps the US Constitution? This makes the US. Constitution INVALID? This has nothing to do with his ineligibility to hold POTUS. Just because Obama BELIEVES himself to be a King, doesn't make it so. According to the US Constitution, Obama is ineligible.

          • The confirmation process is PART of the US Constitution, specified in the US Constitution, as is being sworn in by the Chief Justice of the USA. Both were done.

            Obama is eligible. The US Supreme Court has turned down every birther case.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Obama is a usurper. Just because you choose to ignore the facts don't make them false.
            He lost the Primaries. Just because he committed fraud does not make him rightful winner.

            Obama is ineligible. The US Supreme Court still has other cases regarding his ineligibility to rule upon.

            Continue to be a good little sheep and follow your Messiah. He's going to need all the help he can get.

          • Obama won enough votes to win his party's nomination.

            He is eligible, having been born in Hawaii.

            The US Supreme Court has turned down every birther case so far, and it is likely to turn down all the others too. And, if it ever took a case, it would rule that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I'm done with your games.
            Thats why your an obamasheep. You are a follower.
            I do not follow. I accept the truth.
            Obama IS ineligible. The facts prove it. I'm sure you BELIEVE he was born in Hawaii. Doesn't make it so. Keep following obama, I will follow the facts.

            FACTS state Obama is a usurper. FIRST by holding dual citizenship. Second by being born outside the US. Keep dreaming.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            One more thing. Hear what they did from the ELDERLY WOMEN yourself. Many of them black. And before you try to say it, would YOUR mother or GRANDMOTHER lie? Do you think the woman who walked with MLKJR is lying?
            http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

            And if you listen, you will hear them say that some should have went to Obama instead of Clinton.

          • The elderly woman does not say that there were Black Panthers involved with the Caucuses.

            Obama's main competitor in the caucuses, Hillary Clinton, has acknowledged that Obama won the caucuses.

            Obama won the general election against John McCain, was confirmed by the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY and was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            How naive can you be? Do I really need to explain HOW AND WHY they knew they were Black Panthers?

            Hillary Clinton did the STANDARD concession speech. Does not say she AGREED with it.

            And again, Obama should NOT have been on the Presidential ballot to start.

          • Re: "Do I really need to explain HOW AND WHY they knew they were Black Panthers? "

            If you claim that they affected the Caucuses you do.

            Obama was on the presidential ballot, and he won.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            "If you claim that they affected the Caucuses you do."

            Read the charges from the DOJ and you will know.

            "Obama was on the presidential ballot, and he won"
            Does not mean he is not a usurper.

          • They have absolutely nothing to do with CAUCUSES.

            Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is a Natural Born US Citizen. His election was confirmed by the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY, and he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            "They have absolutely nothing to do with CAUCUSES. "

            Then you have NO IDEA how an election is ran.

            Obama was ineligible for the Presidential election having LOST the Caucus. He holds DUAL CITIZENSHIP and therefore is INELIGIBLE to hold POTUS. He is NOT a natural born citizen and AGAIN INELIGIBLE to hold POTUS. Obama is a usurper.

          • Dual Citizenship has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status, and in fact Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen of the USA and France when he was president.

            There was no SCOTUS ruling on the Natural Born Citizen status, or the dual nationality of President Chester Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Just keep telling yourself that.
            It is against the US Constitution to have dual citizenship and hold POTUS.
            This is verified in the SCOTUS ruling against Arthur.
            Just because YOU don't believe it to be so, doesn't negate the fact it's real.

          • There was no SCOTUS ruling on the Natural Born Citizen status of President Chester Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            As I said, keep telling yourself that. I know it to be fact.

            Unless you can state you have looked at the records, you can not state it as fact.

            Just another attempt at misinformation and redirection of the facts.

          • There was never a Supreme Court ruling on the Natural Born Citizen status of Chester
            Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            So you keep trying to believe.
            I know for fact there is a ruling against Arthur by SCOTUS which ruled him ineligible to be POTUS.

          • No
            Supreme
            Court
            ruling was
            ever
            made
            on CA.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            There was. You just refuse to accept facts.

  10. Seeks_the_truth says:

    "There is NO SCOTUS ruling"

    Just because YOU can't find it doesn't make it not there. Others have found it. I have found it.

    I'll give you a hint. It's in the SCOTUS archives.

    "IF there had been a US Supreme Court ruling against President Arthur, we all would have been taught it during American History. "

    Your joking right? Just like you were taught about Garfields assassination? Most schools don't. Just like you were taught the truth about Thanksgiving? Yea, right. There's A LOT more I could add. Thanks, that was a good giggle.

    I don't SAY there was a ruling. There IS a ruling. Just because YOU can't find it, doesn't make it not there.

    • There is NO US Supreme Court ruling on Chester Arthur. A Supreme Court ruling that a president was not a Natural Born Citizen, if it existed, would be important enough to teach in American History class. You would be able to find it in the biographies of Arthur and Blaine. Prominent birther lawyers like Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donfrio would quote it. There would be links to it from WND.

      Re: "I don't SAY there was a ruling. There IS a ruling. "

      No there isn't a ruling. There is NOT a US Supreme Court ruling on Chester Arthur.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        There is a SCOTUS ruling on Arthur. Just because you are too inept or lazy to find it does not make it so.

        I'm glad you believe our public school system teaches EVERYTHING that is in history. Your one of the few with this belief.

        And there is a ruling. Get off your butt and go research like I did. It only confirmed what I found on the internet. (which I gave you a taste in another post)

        • There is NO SCOTUS ruling on Arthur. Just because you are too inept or lazy to look does not mean that what you have dreamed is true. There is no such thing. You cannot find it. No one can find it. It does not exist.

          If you did research, you should be able to cite it.

          • There is NO SCOTUS ruling on the Natural Born Citizen status, or the dual nationality of President Chester Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            There is. Just because YOUR too inept or lazy to find it doesn't make it so.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            You keep believing that while I laugh at your ineptness.

            "If you did research, you should be able to cite it"

            I can. You are also able to get off your lazy butt and do some research.

          • Re: "I can."

            Like HELL you can. If you could, you would have.

            There is no SCOTUS ruling on the Natural Born Citizen status, or the dual nationality of President Chester Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I CAN and I DID. It's YOU who refuses to accept fact.

            There IS A RULING from SCOTUS on Arthur being INELIGIBLE to hold POTUS because of his DUAL CITIZENSHIP.

          • You neither could, nor did you. There is no SCOTUS ruling on the Natural Born Citizen status, or the dual nationality of President Chester Arthur.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I did. You ignored facts.

            Just because you keep repeating a lie won't make it so.

          • No you didn't.

            Just because YOU keep repeating a lie won't make it so.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            I did. As I said, you refuse to accept the facts.
            Lets keep doing this childish back and forth. I have posted proof of the ruling by SCOTUS on Arthur. You refuse to accept facts. I have personally seen it so you're not going to convince me otherwise.
            Others have also seen it and have posted it.
            Continue to follow Obama's lead on accusations, misrepresentation, and refusal to accept truths.
            I find it funny you have to continue to go back and forth trying to convince yourself.
            The fact is there is a ruling. Your too inept and too lazy to find the complete ruling even though I have given you the entrance AND the volume it is in. Get out of your mama's basement and do some research. You can stay there and keep following like a good sheep. I really don't care.

          • T
            H
            E
            R
            E

            IS

            NO

            S
            U
            C
            H

            R
            U
            L
            I
            N
            G.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            K
            E
            E
            P

            D
            R
            E
            A
            M
            I
            N
            G

            C
            H
            I
            L
            D

            S
            T
            U
            C
            K

            I
            N

            M
            A
            M
            A
            '
            S

            B
            A
            S
            E
            M
            E
            N
            T
            !
            !

            Y
            O
            U
            R

            M
            E
            S
            S
            I
            A
            H

            W
            I
            L
            L

            B
            E

            D
            E
            T
            H
            R
            O
            N
            E
            D
            !
            !

  11. As I said, you are either too lazy or inept to find the rulings on your own.

    No one has found it, and it does not exist on any sites. There is NO US Supreme Court ruling on Chester Arthur.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      I realized you believe EVERYTHING is on the internet. If you picked up an ACTUAL book, you will find the COMPLETE ruling. I found it on the internet, why can't you?

      Ok, here's a taste:

      City and County of New York, ss
      Chester A. Arthur, being duly sworn, says he is a native born
      citizen of the United States; that he is of the age of
      twenty-one years, and a resident of the First Judicial District
      of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
      CHESTER A. ARTHUR.
      Sworn to before me this 4th day of May, 1854.
      WM. A. DUSENBERRY, Com. of Deeds.

      Want more? Find it yourself.

      Oh yea, it doesn't exist.

      Now, are you too inept or too lazy.

      The ruling is there.

      • Whatever that is, it is NOT A RULING BY THE US SUPREME COURT.

        There is no ruling by the US Supreme Court on Arthur.

  12. There was NO Supreme Court ruling against Arthur because of his dual citizenship. There was no ruling that Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Truths ARE truths, and facts are facts. Do your own research , and then show it–IF YOU CAN.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      Your just inept or too lazy to do research. You want others to find facts for you.

      You think you can sit in front of a computer and the world is at your fingertips.
      In another post, I gave you an excerpt of it. The one that is "NOT" on the internet. But that's right, it doesn't exist.
      Try going and reading an ACTUAL book for REAL FACTS.

      Yep, Truths ARE truths, and I gave you facts. Now lets see how you twist this.

      • It is YOU who made the claim that the US Supreme Court ruled on Arthur, and you cannot support what you claimed.

        It is your dream. It did not exist. The US Supreme Court did not rule on Arthur.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          I can, and I have. It is you who are too inept or too lazy to do a little research.
          You wish to be spoon fed all your information.

          It's your dream that facts don't exist.

  13. There is no ruling. The US Supreme Court never made a ruling on Natural Born Citizenship about President Chester A. Arthur.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      Trying to convince yourself? I KNOW there is a ruling against Chester Arthur by the SCOTUS. Just because your too lazy or inept to find it, won't make it disappear.

      • Sure there is.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          I showed you proof. You are ignoring the facts. Ignoring won't make the facts go away.
          Anyone with any sense can see it for themselves.
          Have YOU searched the 1885 volume of SCOTUS rulings? You HAVEN'T? Then how can you categorically state there is none? It's easier to just deny.

          I have, and I have seen it.
          Until you can state you did, you have NO standing. And IF you did, you will SEE there is a ruling against Arthur. You afraid of the truth?

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      Keep telling yourself that. Since I've seen it, I KNOW there is a ruling against Arthur for his dual citizenship.

      Have you checked the SCOTUS archive, especially pertaining to 1885? Interesting you can categorically deny there is a ruling if you have not checked.

      The kool-aid your drinking causes delusions of grandeur now eh?

      • There is no such ruling. If there had been, you would have shown it.

        If there had been, it would have been in the biography of President Arthur.

        If there had been Apuzzo and Donfrio and WND would have cited it.

        The US Supreme Court never made a ruling on Natural Born Citizenship about President Chester A. Arthur.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          "There is no such ruling. If there had been, you would have shown it. "

          I did show you proof it exists. You denied it.

          "If there had been, it would have been in the biography of President Arthur."

          Even the changeable Wikipedia refers to a ruling.

          If there had been Apuzzo and Donfrio and WND would have cited it.

          Glad to see you feel them to be an all knowing entity. But they haven't taken up this argument as of yet. When/if they do, you will see it.

          "The US Supreme Court never made a ruling on Natural Born Citizenship about President Chester A. Arthur. "

          Keep telling yourself this. I KNOW there is.

  14. Seeks_the_truth says:

    There is. I understand. Your too lazy or inept to see the truth.
    I've shown proof there is a ruling. If you choose to ignore it, that is your right. For the rest, we know the truth.

  15. Seeks_the_truth says:

    I'm so glad you find me so interesting you know what I do in my life. You know WHAT I have seen and done.

    Keep denying. No one else believes you.

    • IF
      you
      had
      seen
      it, you would who it.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        You You make no sense. Keep believing your lies. Sucks to support a man who you know to be an usurper.

        • The confirmation process is PART of the US Constitution, specified in the US Constitution, as is being sworn in by the Chief Justice of the USA. Both were done.

  16. NO
    RULING

  17. Seeks_the_truth says:

    So your illiterate to?
    Good to know. Nice to see you prove yourself to be an idiot.

  18. No, the Minor (they use the first name in calling the case) ruling said that there was doubt and that for the purposes of the case there was no need to resolve the doubt. Why not? Because Minor had both things going for her, parents AND place of birth. Wong Kim Ark only had place of birth, and the US Supreme Court ruled that he, and all other children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) are NATURAL BORN.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      With the Minor case,your attempting to form your OWN opinion from the statements from the case. The Justice were simply giving reason for their ruling.

      "'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of PARENTS [plural] who were its CITIZENS [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
      CLEARLY it states PLURAL parents, citizens. This is why this is an example of NATURAL BORN.

      Wong Ark is an example of NATIVE BORN. Born to US soil, but not PARENTS. Show the ruling where it states Wong Ark is NATURAL BORN.

      • An elementary syllogism:

        (1) All men are mortal;
        (2) Wong is a man
        Therefore: (3) Wong is mortal.

        The US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

        (1) Every child born in the USA is Natural Born
        (2) Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA
        Therefore: (3) Wong Kim Ark is Natural Born.

        And the court also ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the USA. What kind of a citizen? Well, if he were left-handed he was a left-handed citizen, but we don't know that he was left-handed. If he were red-headed, he would be a red-headed citizen. But we don't know that either.

        What we do know, because the Supreme Court ruled that he fell into that category, was that he was a Natural Born Citizen.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          "What we do know, because the Supreme Court ruled that he fell into that category, was that he was a Natural Born Citizen."

          I'm certain this is YOUR INTERPRETATION, but it's not the correct one.

          Natural Born was DEFINED in 1866 by Rep. Bingham, considered to be THE FATHER of the 14th AMENDMENT.
          " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

          This is what the SCOTUS used as their bases for their rulings.

          This is also why Ark was ruled a NATIVE BORN.

          • Bingham gave his OPINION, and he was one of dozens of congressmen who spoke, and in fact he was the only one of them who held that the allegiance of the parents mattered.

            Bingham was giving his opinion, but it was not the opinion of the rest, nor was it the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case. (By the way, Bingham was only the father of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author, and had nothing to do with writing the citizenship portion of the amendment.)

            That is why Meese is right, and you are wrong.

            Wong Kim Ark (whose family name was Wong) was ruled to be a Natural Born Citizen, as was EVERY child born in the United States except for the the children of foreign diplomats.

  19. Some more who agree with Meese:

    There's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have two American parents," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. "My understanding of it is if you're born in the United States, you're a natural-born citizen, period."

    Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born "on the soil" a natural-born citizen. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2….

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      Will this help you to understand? In 2005, when Meese wrote this, I AGREE WITH HIS DEFINITION. It was also a proper definition in 1965.

      It was NOT the proper definition in 1961 when Obama WAS BORN.

      In 1965, the legal description and definition of "natural born" and "native born" were changed. OBAMA WAS BORN IN 1961. Therefore, this law DOES NOT PERTAIN TO OBAMA.
      Obama is bound by the definitions and descriptions IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH.
      These were defined by SCOTUS with the following cases:
      U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
      Perkins v. Elg
      Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15

      Let me try to explain this way. Lets say a guy commits murder in 1961. At this time, the Death Penalty is a possible punishment. In 1965, this punishment was repealed. The guy is caught in 2011 and is found guilty. They can sentence him to Death because this penalty was AN OPTION at the time of his crime.
      This is a basic analogy of the status of Obama.

      Until you understand, I would refrain from making any more posts. You are showing yourself to be an idiot.

  20. Seeks_the_truth says:

    You are a very confused person.

    How do ANY of these rulings relate to the definition of "natural born" and "native born" for the year 1961?

    Are you just not COMPREHENDING? Or are you willingly being obtuse?

    I will ATTEMPT to explain it to you one more time.

    ALL the cases you have quoted are based off the 1965 Immigration Act. This law was NOT IN EFFECT when Obama was born in 1961 and therefore NOT RELEVANT to his case. He is bound by laws IN EFFECT at the time of his BIRTH.
    The rulings you have quoted are from 1974, 1983, 1999 and are based on a law from 1965. OBAMA WAS BORN 1961!
    I'm sure you would love for these to apply, BUT THEY DON'T. Do you NOT UNDERSTAND?

    AGAIN. Show case law that was VALID AND IN EFFECT the year Obama was BORN, that defines "natural" and "native" born. I have.

  21. Seeks_the_truth says:

    In 2005, when Meese wrote this, I agree with his definition.

    Now what does this have to do with Obama's status?

    This was NOT the correct description in 1961 when Obama was born.

    I've attempted many times to explain to you why it does not. You're just not understanding the law. Maybe someone else can help you understand. Contact an attorney and see if they can.

    It's OBVIOUS you can't comprehend this matter. I would suggest you refrain from making any more statements until you understand the law. You're showing yourself to be a complete idiot.

    • The meaning of a citizen at birth including ALL the children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) in the 1952 immigration act was exactly the same as in the 1965 and subsequent immigration acts. In short, the law WAS NOT DIFFERENT in 1961 than when Meese wrote. It was THE SAME.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        " In short, the law WAS NOT DIFFERENT in 1961 than when Meese wrote. It was THE SAME. "

        If you believe there IS NO DIFFERENCE, you need to read again.

        The Immigration act of 1952 does not have language that changes the definition of Natural Born which had been previously defined by SCOTUS rulings.

        Natural Born was clearly defined by Rep Bingham in 1866.

        • Neither did any of the immigration laws that followed it. They were all the same.

          The Definition of Natural Born citizen was stated by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark ruling. It ruled that EVERY Child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

          It was you who said that the LAW at the time affected Obama's Natural Born Citizenship. Remember? It was you who said that Meese was right, but that he was basing his opinion on the 1965 (or was it the 1967?) citizenship law. Neither of them either, by the way, defined Natural Born Citizenship.

          Bingham gave his opinion, and he was one of dozens of congressmen who spoke, and in fact he was the only one of them who held that the allegiance of the parents mattered. Bingham was giving his opinion, but it was not the opinion of the rest, nor was it the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case. (By the way, Bingham was only the father of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author, and had nothing to do with writing the citizenship portion of the amendment.)

          That is why Meese is right, and you are wrong:

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        "In short, the law WAS NOT DIFFERENT in 1961 than when Meese wrote. It was THE SAME. "

        The definition of Natural Born was not addressed in the 1952 Immigration Act. If this is what you claim, then we must revert to the LAST DEFINITION of Natural Born which was stated by Rep. Bingham.

        Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered THE FATHER of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

        " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

        You DO notice "parents" is PLURAL?

        • So? It was you who said that the LAW at the time affected Obama's Natural Born Citizenship. Remember? It was you who said that Meese was right, but that he was basing his opinion on the 1965 (or was it the 1967?) citizenship law. Neither of them either, by the way, defined Natural Born Citizenship.

          Why should they? The meaning of Natural Born was well known. It was common language, used even in the draft registration for WWI. That asked whether men were citizens or not, and then if they were, whether they were naturalized or natural born. That's all, not three categories. Only two. If you were born outside of the USA and not a citizen at birth, you had to be naturalized to be a citizen. If you were a citizen at birth, you were a Natural Born Citizen.

          What does Natural Born mean? A citizen at birth, primarily caused by birth in the USA. (Also caused by birth abroad to US citizen parents).

          I pointed out that the law at the time and the time after it was unchanged as far as citizenship was concerned. It was you who claimed that the law in effect in 1961 affected it. It didn't.

          Bingham gave his opinion, and he was one of dozens of congressmen who spoke, and in fact he was the only one of them who held that the allegiance of the parents mattered. Bingham was giving his opinion, but it was not the opinion of the rest, nor was it the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case. (By the way, Bingham was only the father of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author, and had nothing to do with writing the citizenship portion of the amendment.)

          That is why Meese is right, and you are wrong.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        Again, the 1952 Immigration Act DID NOT address the definition of Natural Born.

        We must therefore, revert to the last KNOWN definition.

        Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

        " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

        Notice it says PARENTS. PLURAL.

        • At the time of Obama's birth, the definition of Natural Born was defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, which held that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

          Bingham's opinion was before the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, which clearly said that EVERY Child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        And again, the 1952 Immigration Act DID NOT define Natural Born.

        In 1961, the definition of Natural Born was defined by Rep. Bingham.

        Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

        " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

        Again, Bingham CLEARLY STATES parents.(PLURAL)

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        And yet AGAIN, the 1952 Immigration Act DOES NOT address the definition of Natural Born.

        We must revert to when we DID see a definition. Rep. Bingham.

        Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

        " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

        It's painfully clear the original intent of the framers.

        • So? It was you who said that the LAW at the time affected Obama's Natural Born Citizenship. Remember? It was you who said that Meese was right, but that he was basing his opinion on the 1965 (or was it the 1967?) citizenship law. Neither of them either, by the way, defined Natural Born Citizenship.

          Why should they? The meaning of Natural Born was well known. It was common language, used even in the draft registration for WWI. That asked whether men were citizens or not, and then if they were, whether they were naturalized or natural born. That's all, not three categories. Only two. If you were born outside of the USA and not a citizen at birth, you had to be naturalized to be a citizen. If you were a citizen at birth, you were a Natural Born Citizen.

          What does Natural Born mean? A citizen at birth, primarily caused by birth in the USA. (Also caused by birth abroad to US citizen parents).

          I pointed out that the law at the time and the time after it was unchanged as far as citizenship was concerned. It was you who claimed that the law in effect in 1961 affected it. It didn't.

          Bingham gave his opinion, and he was one of dozens of congressmen who spoke, and in fact he was the only one of them who held that the allegiance of the parents mattered. Bingham was giving his opinion, but it was not the opinion of the rest, nor was it the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case. (By the way, Bingham was only the father of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author, and had nothing to do with writing the citizenship portion of the amendment.)

          That is why Meese is right, and you are wrong:

          Re: Vattel. The words you quote are from a translation of Vattel that appeared ten years after the US Constitution was written. Prior to that no edition of Vattel ever had the words Natural Born Citizen in it.

          What did? Why Blackstone and the common law did, and that is the way that all the Americans (not Swiss like Vattel) used the term Natural Born. And what did it mean? The Americans (not Swiss like Vattel) at the time of the writing of the US Constitution ALWAYS used the term Natural Born to refer to citizenship due to birth in the country. Citizenship due to the PLACE of birth, never to the parents of the citizen.

          That is why all native born US citizens are Natural Born US Citizens, as in fact the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case.

          Meese is right, and you are wrong.

          ""Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.] "
          Re

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Meese is right ONLY for those born AFTER 1965. His description does NOT hold true for those born in 1961.

            You have YET to post a clear LEGAL description that refutes the definition of Natural born as described by Rep. Bingham, who is considered the FATHER of the 14th Amendment..

            Born on US soil to 2(TWO) US citizen PARENTS. Simple as that.

            I doubt you will ever understand the law.

  22. Seeks_the_truth says:

    You are wrong and you know it.

    You've tried to twist the law many times to defend your king. It's not working. The LAW PROVES Obama is INELIGIBLE to hold POTUS by previous SCOTUS rulings..
    Keep trying.

    Everything you have stated has NO BEARING on Obama.

    Obama was born in 1961. Meese based his definition on the 1965 Immigration Act. This has NO BEARING on someone born in 1961.

    When, or IF, you learn the law, you MIGHT understand.
    I grow tired of trying to teach the unteachable.
    All you are doing is showing your ignorance.

    Until you learn, you're just a bunch of hot air.
    Continue to defend the usurper.
    We're gettin a good laugh at your expense.

    • It is you who is spreading disinformation.

      The citizenship of a parent has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens.

      That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

      Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

      “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

      Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

      “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

      And that is why the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, because not one member believed that Obama’s father affects his Natural Born Citizen status. Birthers and two-fers also tried to get the members of the Electoral College to change their votes and not vote for Obama. But not one switched because not one believes that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii and not one believes that the citizenship of Obama’s father affects his Natural Born Citizen status.

      The Wall Street Journal put it this way: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        Everything you said is true for children born AFTER 1965. It DOES NOT HOLD TRUE for children born in 1961.

        In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose PARENTS are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".

        A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service, states:
        Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to PARENTS who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta

        Notice the PLURAL in PARENTS.

        You just don't understand the laws.

        • Re: "It DOES NOT HOLD TRUE for children born in 1961. "

          It also holds true for children born in 1961, which is why the US Electoral College gave Obama all the votes that he won in the general election, which means that not one single elector thought that the citizenship of Obama's father affects his election.

          This is the common use of the phrase Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written:

          “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by the birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”

          St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]

          St. George Tucker was an officer in the American Revolutionary Army, a Professor of Law, justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, judge of the Federal District Court for Virginia by appointment of President James Madison, progenitor of a long line of jurists and scholars, and stepfather of John Randolph of Roanoke.

          Natural born citizens meant "those born in a state."

          So, what did the act of 1790 do? It ADDED the children of US citizens born abroad to the existing category of Natural Born Citizen. And that was, as Tucker shows, all those who had been born in a US state, or in a colony before that.

          So, the following is true: "Anyone born on American soil whose PARENTS are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".

          But the following two things are ALSO true. (1) Everyone born in the USA (unless the parents were foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen, and (2) everyone born outside the USA whose parents were US citizens at the time of birth is a Natural Born Citizen.

          “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Your OPINIONS or COMMON USE hold no weight.
            This is how the ORIGINAL AUTHOR defines what is wrote.

            Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the FATHER OF the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the 2(TWO) US citizen PARENTS understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

            " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

            Rep. Bingham CLEARLY DEFINES natural born as 2(TWO) PARENTS on US soil.

            Show law between 1866 and 1965 that REFUTES this definitive statement.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Rep. Bingham was KEENLY aware that some would attempt to twist the laws to their liking. He was so aware and concerned, in the Spring of 1868, he issued some serious warnings.

            "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!…I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law…"

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        Here are other opinions:
        John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

        Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of PARENTS owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[9]

        He reiterated his statement in 1866:

        Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

        Even Wikipedia gets it right:

        "It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to PARENTS who are U.S. citizens is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president…"

        Two American parents and on American soil — simple as that.

        • The words "generally agreed" do not appear in the Wikipedia article on the Natural Born Citizen clause.

          However, these do: "Justice Joseph Story wrote: "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

          The article on Natural Born Citizenship also includes:

          "Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

          The court ruled:

          It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

          In other words, Wikipedia accepts that the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case the majority of the court defined Natural Born Citizen the way that it was defined under the common law, meaning the combination of the common law term Natural Born and the legal term Citizen.

          Wikipedia also includes this:

          Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844):[24] This opinion from a New York court extensively reviewed the issue of natural born citizenship, and was later cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

          And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

          Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors."

          And this:

          Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009): The Indiana Court of Appeals applied Wong Kim Ark and upheld the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's eligibility.[25][26]

          And this:

          "According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.[34]"

          In other words, you do not even have to be born in a US State. Being born in a territory or in the District of Columbia is also sufficient.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            "According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service"

            You DO have to be born to 2(TWO) US citizen PARENTS.

            And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a NATURAL BORN citizen,….. shall be eligible to the office of President,"

            On Obama's own website, where it says, "The Truth About Barack's Birth Certificate" — "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a "NATIVE CITIZEN of the United States of America."

            Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS: "…natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of PARENTS who are citizens."

          • Re: Vattel. The words you quote are from a translation of Vattel that appeared ten years after the US Constitution was written. Prior to that no edition of Vattel ever had the words Natural Born Citizen in it.

            What did? Why Blackstone and the common law did, and that is the way that all the Americans (not Swiss like Vattel) used the term Natural Born. And what did it mean? The Americans (not Swiss like Vattel) at the time of the writing of the US Constitution ALWAYS used the term Natural Born to refer to citizenship due to birth in the country. Citizenship due to the PLACE of birth, never to the parents of the citizen.

            That is why all native born US citizens are Natural Born US Citizens, as in fact the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case.

            Meese is right, and you are wrong.

            ""Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.] "

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Meese is right EXCEPT for someone born in 1961.

            You have YET to post a clear LEGAL description that refutes the definition of Natural born as described by Rep. Bingham, who is considered the FATHER of the 14th Amendment..

            I doubt you will ever understand the law.

  23. There is not a word that any of the writers of the Constitution or any American leader at the time of the writing of the Constitution wrote that indicates that “Natural Born” means anything other than what it meant in British common law, which was “born in the country.”

    The meaning of a citizen at birth including ALL the children born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats in the 1952 immigration act was exactly the same as in the 1965 and subsequent immigration acts.

    The case USA v Wong Kim Ark ruled that EVERY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born. EVERY child.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      "There is not a word that any of the writers of the Constitution or any American leader at the time of the writing of the Constitution wrote that indicates that “Natural Born” means anything other than what it meant in British common law, which was “born in the country.”"

      Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, CONSIDERED THE FATHER of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

      " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

      Wong Ark was ruled a citizen of the US, or a NATIVE born.

      • Bingham was not a writer of the original constitution, which is what I said:

        ""There is not a word that any of the writers of the Constitution or any American leader at the time of the writing of the Constitution wrote that indicates that “Natural Born” means anything other than what it meant in British common law, which was “born in the country.”"

        Bingham was the author of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, not the citizenship clause. And he was only one of those who spoke in that debate, and all the others said that every child born in the USA is Natural Born.

        The Wong Kim Ark case ruled that EVERY Child born in the USA is Natural Born, and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA.

  24. The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:

    ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

    All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

    The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      At the time of Obama's birth, the definition of Natural Born was defined by Rep. Bingham.

      Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

      " … I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

      Again. notice the PLURAL PARENTS.

      • At the time of Obama's birth, the definition of Natural Born was defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, which held that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

        Bingham, one of dozens of congressmen who spoke in that debate and NOT the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, was giving his opinion, but it was before the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case.

        And in that case, the court stated:

        " It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

        The words above clearly say that EVERY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is NATURAL BORN.

        That is why Meese is right, and you are wrong:

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        Again, notice that Meese refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.

        “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

        Again, notice that the above refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.

        "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

        Again notice that the above refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.

        "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

        Again notice that the above refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.

Speak Your Mind

*